The Daily Mail reporter is pulling numbers out of his....... hat. He claims £6B in sales in the UK, but says that Apple's tax fine was £10M.

Let's generously assume that there was no penalty in the £10M, i.e., all of it was tax owed. The math does not (remotely) compute. Here's why. Apple had a pre-tax margin of about 33%, i.e., £2B, on which they should have owed (according to the article) 24% in UK taxes, i.e., that would be £480M in taxes. They supposedly instead paid the Irish rate of 12.5% i.e., supposedly, £250M.

In other words, they would have owed £230M more to the UK authorities if the article's numbers are to be believed. Yet, they paid £10M.

Explain?

I have no idea, I didn't write the article, and I don't want to start a tax debate on top of this already quite divisive one. The $6bn figure has been reported in a couple of places though, so seems to be accepted as a ball-park figure for Apple's UK revenue. As Apple don't report by-country revenue then we're unlikely to get any better than that for now.

If this has never happened before (and I think it's a first) then its a precadent setting ruling. Apple has every right to fight this tooth and nail if they are the first company in the UK that has ever had to post up such a notice. If this is common in the UK then Apple has no right to complain since it's an accepted practice.

I imagine a lot of companies that operate in the UK are happy Apple is fighting this and drawing attention to this ruling. That will reduce the chance of it happening to them should they find themselves in a similar lawsuit.

They've been through the appeal court, and they accepted the final judgement (even if they weaselled an editorial addition in there they still accepted the judgement). The tooth and the nail have been fought.

Apple, along with many other companies, pay very little UK tax. Most of their UK revenue goes through Ireland, so trying to estimate their UK revenue from their tax bill is a fruitless task. And never believe anything in the Daily Mail, its only useful for wiping your backside on.

The Daily Mail is, indeed, backside-wiping material, but the rest of your post has nothing to do with what is being discussed, which is, the original poster's claim that UK is the second most profitable market for Apple, after the US.

I am suggesting, using evidence he provided, that it's not so, not by a long shot.

I have no idea, I didn't write the article, and I don't want to start a tax debate on top of this already quite divisive one. The $6bn figure has been reported in a couple of places though, so seems to be accepted as a ball-park figure for Apple's UK revenue. As Apple don't report by-country revenue then we're unlikely to get any better than that for now.

You started it with your claim. You should not make claims you can't substantiate. That's all.

This has gone through the court of appeal. Four judges (one for the original case, three for the appeal) have agreed on the same verdict.

No, it hasn't. The original order has gone through a court of appeals and the court said that Apple had to post the message. (Ridiculous, but the UK is apparently OK with juvenile, abusive behavior from its judges).

The appeals court has not yet heard the issue of whether Apple's published statement was acceptable. Apple obviously believes it was - and on the surface, it appears to do everything the judge required. Apple is free to appeal this new ruling - and the appeals court might well side with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichL

As I've already stated, there's very clear pre-existing rules on the printing (electronically or otherwise) of apologies like this one. Apple's lawyers would have been aware of these rules before the statement was posted on Apple's website.

Then feel free to post the specific rule that Apple has broken.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

You started it with your claim. You should not make claims you can't substantiate. That's all.

I wasn't the person who claimed the UK is Apple's second biggest market. I haven't claimed anything like that, except that it's a sizeable market and I think I can remember reading the "second biggest" claim a few years back. Evidence was asked for, so I added the best I could find. I don't claim it's true, just that it's reported.

They've been through the appeal court, and they accepted the final judgement (even if they weaselled an editorial addition in there they still accepted the judgement). The tooth and the nail have been fought.

Since you're in the UK, and are an expert on legal matters, then perhaps you can answer the question Gatorguy couldn't. Namely, provide us with examples of this happening to other companies before Apple.

I'm not an expert in legal matters, and have no examples. I won't even deny that it's an unusual ruling, probably without precedent. But it is a ruling, and a ruling that has been through the appeal courts and been accepted. Apple would have saved themselves a lot of trouble and negative publicity if they'd just taken it like a grown up company.

@FreeRange Sorry, I don't take insults from arrogant, xenophobic, non-entities. Come back when you understand what the word nuance means.

The original Bloomberg report quotes the judges as saying Apple's notice included statements that were untrue and incorrect. That's plain English. Even someone without much of a grasp of the language could understand that,

I wasn't the person who claimed the UK is Apple's second biggest market. I haven't claimed anything like that, except that it's a sizeable market and I think I can remember reading the "second biggest" claim a few years back. Evidence was asked for, so I added the best I could find. I don't claim it's true, just that it's reported.

It's not really clear in that article what "untrue" and "incorrect" are in relation to, I can't see that they're part of any of the longer quotes from the lawyers or judges.

@anantksundaram no problem, there's been a lot of comments in this thread, it's hard to keep track of who said what. I think most of the reasonable people in here would broadly agree that the UK is a big enough market (even if not the second biggest) that Apple are extremely unlikely to wholly withdraw over such a petty legal dispute.

No, it hasn't. The original order has gone through a court of appeals and the court said that Apple had to post the message. (Ridiculous, but the UK is apparently OK with juvenile, abusive behavior from its judges).
The appeals court has not yet heard the issue of whether Apple's published statement was acceptable. Apple obviously believes it was - and on the surface, it appears to do everything the judge required. Apple is free to appeal this new ruling - and the appeals court might well side with them.

AFAIK incorrect JR. This IS the Appeals Court with another ruling that Apple hasn't complied with the last order from that same Appeals Court, and now requiring them to modify and re-post within 48 hours. That court is not going to side with Apple on this one.

Since you're in the UK, and are an expert on legal matters, then perhaps you can answer the question Gatorguy couldn't. Namely, provide us with examples of this happening to other companies before Apple.

I swear, there is something in the air that makes the English (and people who move to England) feel superior and smarter than everyoine else in the world. Anyone (non british) who reads about this judge telling Apple they did it wrong is going to see the judge as a idiotic bully. Ok, anyone with a semblance of common sense. I would bet even the lawyers at Samsung are scratching their heads wondering what is up this judge's bum.I'm no

I'm not british nor do I live in the UK. If I were, then reading the comments by most of the posters here would certainly give me cause to believe I was smarter.

So I was right and this is something new that's happening in the UK. And the wording of the rule is pretty vague:

"Member States shall ensure that, in legal proceedings instituted for infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of the information concerning the decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part. Member States may provide for other additional publicity measures which are appropriate to the particular circumstances, including prominent advertising."

Nothing about time periods, nothing about the font or point size, nothing about where on a web page, nothing about how many papers it should be in. Yet the judge saw fit to specify all these things including what page range they had to be on.

I imagine a lot of companies are going to be challenging this. It makes total sense from the POV of someone who is defamed publicly (like my prevous example of a tabloid or news station making false statements about someone well known, like a celebrity or politician).

But it makes no sense in the case of a company suing another over an issue that could have just as easily gone either way. This isn't a murder trial where there would need to be hard evidence (DNA, witnesses, murder weapon). It's a design lawsuit where things are judged based on perceptions. Which is why I still think companies are loving that Apple is bringing this to light as it will benefit them all.

So I was right and this is something new that's happening in the UK. And the wording of the rule is pretty vague:

"Member States shall ensure that, in legal proceedings instituted for infringement of an intellectual property right, the judicial authorities may order, at the request of the applicant and at the expense of the infringer, appropriate measures for the dissemination of the information concerning the decision, including displaying the decision and publishing it in full or in part. Member States may provide for other additional publicity measures which are appropriate to the particular circumstances, including prominent advertising."

Nothing about time periods, nothing about the font or point size, nothing about where on a web page, nothing about how many papers it should be in. Yet the judge saw fit to specify all these things including what page range they had to be on.

I imagine a lot of companies are going to be challenging this. It makes total sense from the POV of someone who is defamed publicly (like my prevous example of a tabloid or news station making false statements about someone well known, like a celebrity or politician).

But it makes no sense in the case of a company suing another over an issue that could have just as easily gone either way. This isn't a murder trial where there would need to be hard evidence (DNA, witnesses, murder weapon). It's a design lawsuit where things are judged based on perceptions. Which is why I still think companies are loving that Apple is bringing this to light as it will benefit them all.

Eric, I don't believe the publish requirement was simply because Apple was on the losing end. Reading from the court's comments it was due to Apple's continuing efforts to give the impression that Samsung was guilty of infringing on Apple's "iPad design" patent despite the final European-wide judgement that they do not. I completely understand Apple's wish to keep it alive, but after losing a final judgement and two appeals it's probably best to comply and move on, don't you think?

Eric, I don't believe the publish requirement was simply because Apple was on the losing end. Reading from the court's comments it was due to Apple's continuing efforts to give the impression that Samsung was guilty of infringing on Apple's "iPad design" patent despite the final European-wide judgement that they do not. I completely understand Apple's wish to keep it alive, but after losing a final judgement and two appeals it's probably best to comply and move on, don't you think?

Eric, I don't believe the publish requirement was simply because Apple was on the losing end. Reading from the court's comments it was due to Apple's continuing efforts to give the impression that Samsung was guilty of infringing on Apple's "iPad design" patent despite the final European-wide judgement that they do not. I completely understand Apple's wish to keep it alive, but after losing a final judgement and two appeals it's probably best to comply and move on, don't you think?

You completely skipped over his basic point, didn't you?

Typical of you: divert the conversation by providing some extraneous, tangential evidence on something vaguely related, and when caught out, pretend that the diversion you raised was the point under discussion.

Typical of you: divert the conversation by providing some extraneous, tangential evidence on something vaguely related, and when caught out, pretend that the diversion you raised was the point under discussion.

Oh boy. Surprise us.

I'm sorry.... was something I wrote inaccurate or not pertinent to the discussion? If so, please point it out. If it's just that you don't like what I wrote (likely IMO), fair enough. I doubt anyone likes everything any of the regulars posts.

I was the only one that took the time to find an explanation, even linking to a legal opinion. I didn't see you making any effort to answer his question, and still don't. Far from skipping over his "basic points" I actually put forth some effort on his behalf rather than avoid being bothered. You're welcome.

I'm sorry.... was something I wrote inaccurate or not pertinent to the discussion? If so, please point it out. If it's just that you don't like what I wrote (likely IMO), fair enough. I doubt anyone likes everything any of the regulars posts.

I was the only one that took the time to find an explanation, even linking to a legal opinion. I didn't see you making any effort to answer his question, and still don't. Far from skipping over his "basic points" I actually put forth some effort on his behalf rather than avoid being bothered. You're welcome.

1) Why don't you tell us: what do you think his basic question was?

2) In response to his question, you posted drivel that merely proved the premise of the challenge implied by the question (a premise with which I agree with 100% -- that you have zilch to offer by way of evidence).

Apple DID NOT comply with the court order. There are very specific rules for placement and font size in cases like this. The judge has confirmed that Apple broke these rules.

If you believe that the judge is making this up as he goes along then you have no idea about how the English legal system works.

Tell us of these "rules" and point us to the laws that force compliance.

Apple complied with the ruling of the appeals court, they should leave the notice exactly as it is, maybe adding more.

"Michael Beloff, a lawyer representing Apple, defending the notice, told the court that the judges themselves had said that it "is not designed to punish, it is not designed to make us grovel" and that its only purpose was "to dispel commercial uncertainty"." Source

Apple should tell those crusty old c*nts to go f*ck themselves with a gavel.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

I find it interesting that the Apple defenderati that said the UK judge should have dictated the wording of the statement for Apple to put on the website are now criticising the UK legal system for treating its subjects like children.

I fear that you are affected by the same chemicals your famous namesake Alistair used to indulge in, hence, off to the ignore list with you.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

Tell us of these "rules" and point us to the laws that force compliance.

Apple complied with the ruling of the appeals court, they should leave the notice exactly as it is, maybe adding more.

"Michael Beloff, a lawyer representing Apple, defending the notice, told the court that the judges themselves had said that it "is not designed to punish, it is not designed to make us grovel" and that its only purpose was "to dispel commercial uncertainty"." Source

Apple should tell those crusty old c*nts to go f*ck themselves with a gavel.

Interesting. That actually demonstrates my point, As I have repeatedly asked: exactly what part of Apple statement was untrue?

The court did not say Apple could not add additional facts. They didn't even say Apple couldn't editorialize the statement, which the didn't do. They simply added additional facts, most of which were directly from the court record of judge Biriss' original ruling.

So, they posted what they were instructed to posted, how and where they were supposed to post it. So they were slapped down for including facts. A court should never be afraid of facts, especially when the factual statements are from the court itself. So, given Apple's statements were facts, they cannot be untrue or incorrect and the judges said. If their reasons are flawed, then their ruling is wrong.

Exactly.

One of the judges - who noted he owned an iPad himself - explained why Apple had lost the appeal in his ruling.

"Because this case (and parallel cases in other countries) has generated much publicity, it will avoid confusion to say what this case is about and not about," wrote Sir Robin Jacob.

"It is not about whether Samsung copied Apple's iPad. Infringement of a registered design does not involve any question of whether there was copying: the issue is simply whether the accused design is too close to the registered design according to the tests laid down in the law."

"So this case is all about, and only about, Apple's registered design and the Samsung products."

The Judge included rules in his order for those issues, which Apple followed.
IF he wanted Apple to follow some generally accepted 'style book' for such things he should have said 'per law thus and such'. Just like he should have been more careful about the order in general.

BS.

Substance vs form.

Apple may have followed the form but they certainly have not followed the substance of the judge's order.

The judge's orders were to state that Samsung's product does not "copy" Apple's product; not to go ahead and throw in extraneous information to try and mitigate their admission. Not only that, they compared the UK's ruling with rulings from other countries, which has no relationship with the one in the UK!. Apple basically said FU to the authority of the UK judgement

Edited by Galbi - 11/1/12 at 1:14pm

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400." - 11/21/12 by Galbi

More stupid, childish, arrogant and ignorant comments: It is really sad to see Apple executives falling that low, pandering to the fanbois with childish contempt of the court... I am GLAD it had backfired.

...was the court requirement to publish a common one or is this something relatively new. Can you find where I answered his question with a link to an excellent legal explanation? Why don't you tell us what you think his basic question was?

No, it hasn't. You seem to like pickles, so let's go back to that broken analogy.

Dad tells his kid he doesn't like pickles. Dad asks kid to go to the store, gives him the money for a specific set of groceries. Kid gets the groceries. Also uses his own money to buy pickles. Dad punishes kid.

Stop the projector (do not turn off the sound) and discuss with the class: was the dad ethically, morally, or legally correct in punishing his son?

Sorry but that is the wrong analogy.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400." - 11/21/12 by Galbi